The Leveson inquiry was set up to address "the culture, practices and ethics of the press, including contacts between the press and politicians and the press and the police" (Comment, 19 March). Our views diverge on whether the outcome of the Leveson process – and the plans for a new regulator – are the best way forward. But where we all agree is that current attempts at regulating blogs and other small independent news websites are critically flawed.

The government has defined a "relevant publisher" for the purposes of press regulation in a way that seeks to draft campaign groups and community-run websites covering neighbourhood planning applications and local council affairs into a regulator designed for the Guardian, Sun and Daily Mail. Even the smallest of websites will be threatened with the stick of punitive "exemplary damages" if they fall foul of a broad range of torts, encompassing everything from libel to "breach of confidence". The authors of these proposals should reflect on their remarkable achievement of uniting both Tom Watson and Rupert Murdoch in opposition.

This appears to be the outcome of a botched late-night drafting process and complete lack of consultation with bloggers, online journalists and social media users, who may now be caught in regulations which trample on grassroots democratic activity and Britain's emerging digital economy. Leveson was meant to be focused on the impact of "big media". In the end it may come to be seen as a damaging attack on Britain's blogosphere, which rather than being a weakness in British politics, has proved time and time again that it is a real strength.

• When I introduced the freedom and responsibility of the press bill 23 years ago, Simon Jenkins made the same arguments as he did this week (Comment, 20 March). Full marks for consistency, zero for learning from experience. The victims do not want or need "revenge". They want justice and the confidence that others will not have to suffer as they did. The victims who gave evidence to my committee felt the same.

There are countless good journalists who were let down by a weak Press Complaints Commission set up by and for the editors, so the bullying and dishonesty continued unabated. The royal charter would not have been my first choice. I preferred the Leveson approach, but this is good compromise. All it needs is the newspapers to recognise the failure of the old system, accept that the culture of the press needs to change and to remember that press freedom is an extension of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. It is not, and should never have been allowed to become, a freedom for rich and powerful press barons to pursue profit at the expense of the public.

I write this as a politician who despite occasional battles has had a pretty good press over the years. So, Simon, this is not about revenge. It is about rights and duties in a free society.Clive SoleyLab, House of Lords

• According to Trevor Kavanagh, associate editor at the Sun, we are to thank press freedom for holding public institutions to account (Roy Greenslade, 15 March). He has the gall to use Hillsborough as a prime example. I am co-author of two substantial reports on Hillsborough, published in 1990 and 1995, and author of Hillsborough: The Truth, first published 1999. Each analysed in depth the institutional failure of the press to investigate the public agencies involved.

I am also the member of the Hillsborough independent panel who led its research. The final chapter of the panel's report is headed Behind the headlines: the origins, promotion and reproduction of unsubstantiated allegations. It analyses the press distortion of events through detailed analysis of documents revealing exchanges between police officers, a Sheffield news agency, the late Irvine Patnick MP and the local Police Federation. The Sun was by far the worst culprit in disseminating untruths, causing deep hurt to the bereaved and survivors.

At the time of the funerals, the Sun's managing editor wrote to grieving families stating its "duty as a newspaper [was] to publish information, however hurtful and unpalatable". He refused to apologise for "substance" and "fact", affirming "to do so would be an abdication of our responsibility to a wider public beyond the city of Liverpool". He concluded: "If the price of a free press is a boycott of the newspaper, then it is a price we will have to pay." They did – and Trevor Kavanagh clearly needs reminding that a "free press", essential to democracy, has to be accountable for egregious abuses of that freedom.Professor Phil Scraton Queen's University Belfast

• Simon Jenkins's analysis of the new system of statutory regulation of the press as a victory for the rich and powerful is accurate. This includes the astounding new legal principle that a loser in court can claim costs, provided they were suing the press for libel. So why is the only criticism the Guardian's editor can offer of the new statutory system the weary "the agreed terms are not ideal"? With journalists being arrested in dawn raids, there's obviously no need for further laws to cover their misdeeds, certainly not laws cooked up by a celebrities' pressure group that'll only increase the UK's attraction for libel tourism.John HallBristol

• The Mail hates it. The Express hates it. The Sun hates it. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive.Peter NicklinNewcastle upon Tyne